Holes on BM

NickZac said:
I could put a Star of David on a blade and call that the best, and with decent advertising, people would buy it. From what I have seen, opening mechanisms are generally adapted to by their users after some usage. Indeed, the large round Spyderco Hole is much easier to use than an oval or stud when wearing thick gloves.

Benchmade began swearing by the oval hole only after some falling out supposedly occurred between the two companies...prior to that, they used the round hole themselves. Is the round hole a Spyderco trademark? ...well I've owned a lot of Spydercos in my day and every single one has had a hole in it... When I first saw the Vex, I thought it was a Spyderco design from the late 80s, early 90s, maybe with a bit of Bob Terzuola.

Is someone getting shafted here? Given no one has talked about what the heck is going on, we could probably say yes, or something is at least not right. Given the fact we see Benchmade using Spyderco's design and not vice versa (or at least not as of yet), many people claim to smell stink.
Click to expand...

Spyderco uses the ball-bearing lock, which is the exact same concept as the Axis lock. I wonder if they pay Benchmade for that?:jerkit:
 
buddahair said:
Spyderco uses the ball-bearing lock, which is the exact same concept as the Axis lock. I wonder if they pay Benchmade for that?:jerkit:
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. The axis lock puts pressure from the lock pin onto the liners of the knife, which is why all Axis models have steel liners. Spyderco's ball bearing, while stopping the tang in a similar fashion, rests against its own metal housing. This is why the linerless Dodo model is still very tough. Designs like SOG's Arc Lock and whatever Cold Steel is using are far more similar, and pay the royalties as such.
 
come on. The concept is the same. It even uses the same motion to unlock.

-Blair
 
buddahair said:
come on. The concept is the same. It even uses the same motion to unlock.

-Blair
Click to expand...


By your rationale of "the concept is the same" then technically the compression lock would be the same as a liner lock. I mean, the motion to unlock them both is the same. I mean they both provide resistance to closing by imposing a barrier at the back of the blade tang. Or a better example would be to say that a hole opener is the same as a thumbstud opener. I mean, they're both round, they both give the thumb purchase to enable a blade to be opened one handed. BUT, they were different enough that when Spyderco had a patent on hole openers it was just for those and not for thumbstud openers. The fact of the matter is, the mechanics of the ball bearing lock are completely different than the Axis. It uses a completely different spring system than Axis. It wedges a ball bearing behind the blade instead of a bar. The pressure applied to the lock is reenforced by the backspacer with the BBL and with the axis lock it is on the liners which is why most Axis are open behind the lock.
 
The ball lock is an improvement on the Axis lock in some ways. But they never would have thought of it without seeing the Axis lock First. That is my point I guess. Makers of the thumb stud never would have thought of it if they had not seen the Spyderco hole.

BTW, the compression lock is my favorite.

-Blair
 
be prepared to back it up!

buddahair said:
Spyderco uses the ball-bearing lock, which is the exact same concept as the Axis lock. I wonder if they pay Benchmade for that?:jerkit:
Click to expand...

buddahair said:
come on. The concept is the same. It even uses the same motion to unlock.

-Blair
Click to expand...

Funny!:D

Are you actually saying that a cylindirical rod and a ball-bearing are exactly the same?:foot:

Are you actually saying that 1 coil spring is exactly the same as 2 omega springs?:foot:

Are you actually saying that the locking concept of applying presure solely to the back-spacer of a knife is exactly the same as the locking concept of applying pressure solely to the liners of a knife?:foot:

Shall I continue?;) I think I will.

Benchmade (McHenry & Williams) was awarded a patent for the Axis Lock concept.

Spyderco was awarded a patent for the ball-bearing lock concept.

The reason both companies were awarded patents is because the concepts were different enough to be considered unique!

Show me Benchmade's patent on the Spyderco round hole....Oh, that's right, they don't have one!

Show me Benchmade's trademark for the Spyderco round hole.....Oh, that's right, it's Spyderco's trademark, not Benchmade's!

Bottom line, a round hole in a knife blade is a round hole in a knife blade. It was Spyderco's invention, was patented by Spyderco, and is Spyderco's trademark.

Two, different, separately patented, locking mechanisms are just that, two, different, separately patented, locking mechanisms.

If you're going to argue Spyderco's right to the Spyderco round hole, please make sure your argument has some merrit, and isn't, for lack of a better term, pathetic!


Regards,
3G

P.S.

Eojk,

I love your sig line, and agree whole-heartedly!:thumbup:
 
...I'm sorry, as far as stupid arguments go, isn't this thread about proprietary rights to a round hole?

Actually, I'd argue that this thread has less to do with the shape of a hole than people who prefer Spyderco vs. people who prefer Benchmade.

The thing I can't figure out is why, instead of enjoying the brand of knife you spent money on, forum members are compelled to attack competitor companies, and stoop so low as to make personal attacks against those who try to point out how ridiculous they're being.
 
enderwiggin said:
...I'm sorry, as far as stupid arguments go, isn't this thread about proprietary rights to a round hole?

Actually, I'd argue that this thread has less to do with the shape of a hole than people who prefer Spyderco vs. people who prefer Benchmade.

The thing I can't figure out is why, instead of enjoying the brand of knife you spent money on, forum members are compelled to attack competitor companies, and stoop so low as to make personal attacks against those who try to point out how ridiculous they're being.
Click to expand...

Sometimes morals and ethics are a lot more important than the product themselves.
 
people like to speak about theft of the trademark, while completely ignoring the fact that custom makers are allowed to use the hole for a nominal fee ($50/yr, IIRC). I guess I could call up Nike and use the swoosh on my handmade loafers, build a car with a split grill after shooting a check to BMW, or assemble some home electronics and then put a Z shaped lightning bolt on it if I wire Zenith the payment.

That's why it doesn't bother me that BM is using it. It was covered under a patent, and patented mechanisms are licensed out all the time. When the patent expired, Spyderco got it covered under trademark, which makes no sense at all to me. You don't ever let some other independent entity sell a product with your trademark. So I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but I never thought the TM was rock solid.
 
Recursion said:
Could someone please explain to me why BM now uses the round hole like the Spyderco knives do. I just noticed it and dont really know why. I always thought BM said the Oval hole was superior for opening and such, if so why would they move down to a round hole which was not the best according to them.
Click to expand...

Let me try to keep close to your question:

I guess they use the round hole, because it is easier to cut and more comfort or more reliable as a blade opener than the oval hole.

I never heard BM saying, their oval hole were superior to the round hole of Spyderco. I guess they never lost a word about it.

Consider the Grips, i guess, the oval makes the whole appearance of the knife looking more like a reptile, like the name.

I my eyes, there is no contradiction. As far as i remember they never claimed superiority, so they can change whatever they like.
 
buddahair said:
Spyderco uses the ball-bearing lock, which is the exact same concept as the Axis lock. I wonder if they pay Benchmade for that?
Click to expand...

Blackie Collins' Bolt-action lock precedes both locks, so that's the answer to Who's on First.

Blop said:
I never heard BM saying, their oval hole were superior to the round hole of Spyderco. I guess they never lost a word about it.
Click to expand...

I thought I saw ad copy to that effect, but don't want to find it nor ask anyone to take my word for it. In some ways, the oval is superior in that it can allow for more thumb purchase in a narrower blade.

My take on the whole shebang is: if it bothers you, don't buy a Benchmade; if you want a really great knife, buy a Spyderco.
 
"Are you actually saying that a cylindirical rod and a ball-bearing are exactly the same?

Are you actually saying that 1 coil spring is exactly the same as 2 omega springs?

Are you actually saying that the locking concept of applying presure solely to the back-spacer of a knife is exactly the same as the locking concept of applying pressure solely to the liners of a knife? "

Yes, I am saying they are the same concept, just different execution.

I love Spyderco knives and own about 15 of them, but I'm not afraid to say that the ball bearing lock is just a variation of the Axis lock.

-Blair
 
The locks are similar yet different enough for a patent. Was one inspired by the other...probably but what difference does it make?

Patents don't make something new nor does it prove the patent holder had the original idea. Patents only mean something is new enough to be allowed sole usage for a short period of time to the person who got the patent.

For 300 years knife makers have been claiming their products are new, different and the best. That's just the way of this business. So it is not suprising that Spyderco lovers like to believe that their company is first in everything that counts...that's OK just not true. Holes to open knives have been used by Scagel since the early to mid 20th century. A recent KnifeWorld article indicated how clips have been around since the mid 20th century, the pocket was the shirt not the pants. Spyderco didn't invent the clip, just using it for pants. The "cobra hood" is just a bent thumb disk. VG-10 was in use in Japan before it was "discovered" by spyderco. ZDP wonder steel was brought to america by William and Henry. ATS-55 was so great it doesn't exist anymore. The spyderco "unique" locks are all derivations of other ideas. If they were as good as touted, they'd be in more of the spyderco products. Remember a good lock is also cost effective.

Long story short, don't damn a manufacturer for using ideas where they find them. It's part of the human tradition to use good ideas. That's why patents expire. Benchmade, which is a reputable and legal US company no matter what the spyderco lovers believe, would not be using the round hole unless it was legal. Other companies have also started using the round hole. Looks like the "trademark" hook won't help spyderco keep a lock on a good idea and really, it shouldn't. Calling it a trademark was a "trick" to keep hold of intellectual property that should have been in the public domain by now. Spyderco has made plenty of products w/o the hole (e.g. kitchen knives, fixed blades, sharpening systems, etc.)
 
I couldn't give a monkey's about Benchmade using round holes.

The Victorinox Soldier that's in my pocket right now has a nail nick. I just bought a ZDP Calypso Jr (round hole) and a Micarta Seb (thumbstuds). Later this year I'll buy a Benchmade 745 Mini Dejavoo (round hole)...and a 14205 HK (thumbstuds).

There's more to a knife than an opening aid.
 
Brownshoe, PLEASE get your facts straight. The round hole was never patented. A depression to allow purchase for the thumb was patented. The round hole was and is a single implementation of the formerly patented concept. Sal Glesser went through all the processes necessary to register that hole as his trademark, including demonstating to the bureaucrats that there is substantial brand recognition associating the round opening hole with knives manufactured by Spyderco.

Personally, I wouldn't care if BM used it if they acknowledged that it is in fact a registered trademark of Spyderco, which they don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top